Why don't you guys use wikipedia for Pathology?

[318038]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I find that most people are using RR and Robbins for path review. However, if you read BRS Path and simply wikipedia each disease, I feel as though you get a solid understanding of all of the pathology without having to memorize so much. From most of the threads I have read, it seems as though people do not use wikipedia too much but it is an extremely fast resource since all you have to do is type in the disease and it highlights every important detail. Any thoughts on using BRS Path + Wiki?

 

[MossPoh]

Because it is wikipedia....?

 

[318038]

Because it is wikipedia....?

Wikipedia is pretty accurate and almost everything in it has citations at the bottom.

 

[Knicks]

I'm sure a lot of people do use it.

 

[MossPoh]

Wikipedia is pretty accurate and almost everything in it has citations at the bottom.

Yes..."pretty accurate". How many of those citations do you check? We all use wikipedia, but I don't think it is wise academic practice to use it as a primary information source. It literally takes me about 15 seconds longer to get to my library resource page and once there, no true difference in time to pull up information than wikipedia with the added benefit of not having the coming shame of where I read it when a professor asks during a small group.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

I find that most people are using RR and Robbins for path review. However, if you read BRS Path and simply wikipedia each disease, I feel as though you get a solid understanding of all of the pathology without having to memorize so much. From most of the threads I have read, it seems as though people do not use wikipedia too much but it is an extremely fast resource since all you have to do is type in the disease and it highlights every important detail. Any thoughts on using BRS Path + Wiki?

I use wikipedia all the time to look up things I don't know. But I wouldn't use it as a primary or even secondary resource for medical school coursework. It is almost invariably "missing" something - either the depth of knowledge or the clinical applications, or something else.

 

[michigator04]

Calling our school the 'University of Wikipedia' has been running joke among our class all year.

 

[nopressure]

i probably used wiki more than most students. i kind of did all my pathology learning online 😳.

i think it serves you fine (barring a few subjects like neurology) as long as you use some common sense. clinical medicine is a whole different story though.

 

[Fiddlergirl]

I tend to use wikipedia to check things. I wouldn't use it to study full time because it wasn't written by someone thinking about the boards. Sometimes it's missing important details, and sometimes it has too much information. RR was written for med students, so I can be sure that if I read something in there I should know it. If I see something on wikipedia, I don't know if it's really important or an obscure detail.

 

[red10]

wiki is always good for general knowledge or reminding yourself of something you've already learned. But using it to learn the material the first time doesn't seem like the best practice.

 

[xanthomondo]

I find the problem with Wiki is that it is very inconsistent with the depth of knowledge. You'll look up one topic and there's an entire doctoral dissertation online (which is way too in depth) and then you'll look something else up and you'll get two sentences.

The medical books/review sources are more honed into what medical students need in terms of depth and connections with other relevent medicine.

 

[da8s0859q]

I find the problem with Wiki is that it is very inconsistent with the depth of knowledge. You'll look up one topic and there's an entire doctoral dissertation online (which is way too in depth) and then you'll look something else up and you'll get two sentences.

Have noticed that a few times -- definitely one of my bigger issues for WP... and I still use it all. the. time.

 

[Knicks]

^^ LoL 😀

 

[MeRLin443]

I find that most people are using RR and Robbins for path review. However, if you read BRS Path and simply wikipedia each disease, I feel as though you get a solid understanding of all of the pathology without having to memorize so much. From most of the threads I have read, it seems as though people do not use wikipedia too much but it is an extremely fast resource since all you have to do is type in the disease and it highlights every important detail. Any thoughts on using BRS Path + Wiki?

 

[IMGUSMLEStep1]

Why don't YOU use RR Pathology instead of wikipedia? lol. It's an amazing book.

 

[mmmcdowe]

I use wikipedia for lecture clarification. I could see myself using wiki for more, but frankly I feel like I'd get sucked into a wikipedia train of articles and ultimately not be very productive in the long run. I also would facebook a lot more.

 

[318038]

I completely agree with you guys as far as some articles having a lot of information and others having very little.

For some reason my path knowledge is terribly weak. In class we get a disease (around 30 per exam) with 4-5 bullet points which I memorize and immediately forget after the exam. I think picking up a copy of Robbin's would be beneficial so that I understand the context of what is going. Reading BRS and RR is great for someone with a great path background, but if you don't understand what something is and why it happens, its impossible to really grasp the material.

 

[Excelsius]

I don't know if any of you have tried Google Books, but I think that is a very powerful tool. Let's say I am trying to find out about a particular structure or protein that was either poorly explained in the text or was very interesting but not covered in-depth. I go to GBooks and do a search for the keyword, preferably something unambiguous, like DARPP-32. Not only does it bring up a list of books that contain that information, but you can actually read the information and decide which book has the content you like and the language that is succinct. Even in cases where the preview is limited, you can often get most of the information you were looking for. If not, you already know exactly what book you need to check out from the library or buy. You rarely have to worry about the reliability of sources. Now Pubmed is also good, but too often the details are just too much to be efficient. It's equivalent to reinventing the wheel every time.

 

[Rollo]

Because it is wikipedia....?

👍

You have to check the citation at the end to make sure they come from legit sources. And the amount of time it takes you to look at the citations, you could've easily looked up the same, and definitely more in-depth, information from your online school library.

Don't be lazy!

 

[coldweatherblue]

I don't use wiki as primary study material, but it is very useful for looking up specific details. For example if I see an enzyme that I don't remember, it's much more efficient to look it up on wikipedia than look it up through an index in the back of a textbook. I wouldn't study pathology using wikipedia due to reasons listed above; the material isn't uniformly compiled and integrated into a high-yield, easily understandable, and memory-inducing format.

Regarding accuracy; a lot of medical students have delusions of becoming inexhaustible sources of impregnable knowledge, so the response is to disregard wikipedia due to its being user-created. Many sources have some sort of errata (First Aid, Rapid Review, etc all have numerous mistakes) and imo wiki is as credible as any of them. Remember the articles in your school's library may be dated, discredited, and biased as well. Medical textbooks are often outdated as soon as they print. The goal of knowing everything perfectly is flawed.

I wouldn't use WP as primary study material or clinical reference (up-to-date is so much better..) but I have no problem using it to review the enzymes in a biochem pathway or the mechanism of a brand new drug.

 

[Knicks]

I don't use wiki as primary study material, but it is very useful for looking up specific details. For example if I see an enzyme that I don't remember, it's much more efficient to look it up on wikipedia than look it up through an index in the back of a textbook. I wouldn't study pathology using wikipedia due to reasons listed above; the material isn't uniformly compiled and integrated into a high-yield, easily understandable, and memory-inducing format.

Regarding accuracy; a lot of medical students have delusions of becoming inexhaustible sources of impregnable knowledge, so the response is to disregard wikipedia due to its being user-created. Many sources have some sort of errata (First Aid, Rapid Review, etc all have numerous mistakes) and imo wiki is as credible as any of them. Remember the articles in your school's library may be dated, discredited, and biased as well. Medical textbooks are often outdated as soon as they print. The goal of knowing everything perfectly is flawed.

I wouldn't use WP as primary study material or clinical reference (up-to-date is so much better..) but I have no problem using it to review the enzymes in a biochem pathway or the mechanism of a brand new drug.

This post is spot on, particularly the part in bold. Think about it, FA even makes errors in things that were correct in 1 previous edition!

 

[deleted103644]

Just be careful, in case there are any gunners in your school who might intentionally change wikipedia entries the night before an exam. 😛

 

[Dr Oops]

I completely agree with you guys as far as some articles having a lot of information and others having very little.

For some reason my path knowledge is terribly weak. In class we get a disease (around 30 per exam) with 4-5 bullet points which I memorize and immediately forget after the exam. I think picking up a copy of Robbin's would be beneficial so that I understand the context of what is going. Reading BRS and RR is great for someone with a great path background, but if you don't understand what something is and why it happens, its impossible to really grasp the material.

With our bang up duo of one broad review book and the almighty wikipedia how could that be?!?!?

Wikipedia is fine for looking up something quickly but it's just not good enough for learning the material For the first time.

 

[Bassix]

Here's my recommendation. Go over your notes with RR next to you. Fill in RR with whatever you think is pertinent and just use wiki. I used to use big Robbins but it just took too much time. Now I only use wiki to triple check stuff from RR and notes and to look up a more in-depth version of pathogenesis.

I will agree with above posters though that sometimes there's just way too much detail and tangential information from whatever author was editing wiki.

 

[SlickNickMD]

I'm amazed by how often I referred to wikipedia first year. At times I was like screw this 90 page ppt lecture, I'm just gonna wiki it and it worked.

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

I would use wikipedia when I needed to recall information that I had previously studied.

Ex - doing a quick glance at different types of headaches and their etiologies/sx/tx/etc before neuro lab. There are many informal sources for these things - wiki just presents it in a way I like.

I would never use it as a primary source. It's just too unreliable and no consistent editing.

 

[MilkmanAl]

Why would you use Wiki for pathology, of all things? At least pick a subject that doesn't have an unbelievably awesome review book written for it. Pharm or biochem or something would make a lot more sense. If it's path you're worried about, look it up in Goljan.

 

[dienekes88]

Why would you use Wiki for pathology, of all things? At least pick a subject that doesn't have an unbelievably awesome review book written for it. Pharm or biochem or something would make a lot more sense. If it's path you're worried about, look it up in Goljan.

So true. Goljan will give you the knowledge that you will need for the boards, because that's the entire point of the book. If the wiki article has boards-type knowledge, it's merely a coincidence.

Uptodate is also good (and just as fast as wikipedia once you get used to it).

I intermittently use wikipedia for random basic science stuff and read it with the understanding that anybody could edit it.

Regarding Biochem, if I have a question about a pathway, I'll google image search it and look for a diagram from a major journal (Nature usually has articles with some pretty intense pictures).

Regarding Pharm, Uptodate is a GREAT resource: adverse effects, mechanism of action (in 1 short paragraph!), indications for use. Also, Lippincott's Pharmacology is solid, though I'll admit it's a bit of an overkill for the boards. However, it's always better to over-study than under-study.

 

[singinfifi]

To echo an above poster:

Because as soon as the gunners in class figure out that everyone else is using it to study, you're screwed.

 

[cpants]

👍

You have to check the citation at the end to make sure they come from legit sources. And the amount of time it takes you to look at the citations, you could've easily looked up the same, and definitely more in-depth, information from your online school library.

Don't be lazy!

The citations at the end are often great time savers though. One of my favorite uses of wikipedia is to look up the disease (or whatever it is i am researching) and then go right to the citations. Usually you can find references to the one or two excellent review articles on the subject in medical journals.

 

[Mattchiavelli]

why are people scared of the big Robbins book? I thought it was awesome personally and I have no idea how you are learning anything from the BRS series. Just read the damn book- you will do better on boards and you will blow people away on clerkships with your knowledge of path, which is the cornerstone of medicine. If you don't want to know path, why not just be a nurse practitioner?

Anyway I've started replacing my wikipedia with looking stuff up on the eMedicine website. It lists an actual author (instead of the author being "tasteediamond69" :b) with references and each article starts with a pathophysiology blurb that will usually bring me up to speed.

 

[318038]

why are people scared of the big Robbins book? I thought it was awesome personally and I have no idea how you are learning anything from the BRS series. Just read the damn book- you will do better on boards and you will blow people away on clerkships with your knowledge of path, which is the cornerstone of medicine. If you don't want to know path, why not just be a nurse practitioner?

Anyway I've started replacing my wikipedia with looking stuff up on the eMedicine website. It lists an actual author (instead of the author being "tasteediamond69" :b) with references and each article starts with a pathophysiology blurb that will usually bring me up to speed.

I checked out the Big Robbin's Book and it is just way too much to wrap your head around. I feel if I spent a semester reading it, I probably couldn't repeat one thing I learned to you. Books like BRS and RR take the pulp of Robbins and hand it to students in a more manageable format. If I was a Path resident thought, I would be all over Robbin's. As a med student, Goljan's/BRS is perfect.

 

[PharmaTope]

Just be careful, in case there are any gunners in your school who might intentionally change wikipedia entries the night before an exam. 😛

that is very very disturbing but i dont put it past people these days

 

[andie gustafson]

because it's not detailed enough. Most of the population reads wiki and as a future doctor I think people would trust me more if I know a little bit more than they do.

 

[318038]

because it's not detailed enough. Most of the population reads wiki and as a future doctor I think people would trust me more if I know a little bit more than they do.

Wiki is actually 10x more detailed Goljan's.

 

[shreypete]

Wiki is actually 10x more detailed Goljan's.

True! The only other source that could beat Wikipedia in Pathology is Big Robbins.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Wiki is actually 10x more detailed Goljan's.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

That is the problem as outlined by others on this thread. There is no consistent depth of information on wikipedia nor is there consistent formatting. For some topics you will find a doctoral thesis, for others a stub.

Goljan on the other hand has a consistent easy to follow format, as well as consistent and appropriate depth of information for medical school coursework and USMLE step I

 

[theRighteousDoc]

Guys, please advise whether Wikipedia is excellent for studying for PHARMACOLOGY final?

Any thoughts? ??
thx